The So-called "New Man"

There are people out there whose brain's fashion stories liberally plucked from the scientific literature, and used in ways, of course, that fit
their particular social, emotional and psychological needs.

There is such authority and determination in the ego under-certain-conditions - what may be called the "hermeneutical background". The background
sits quietly, silently, determining the directionality and probability of behavior, behind human attention. No one inquires? The background merely
sits there, not wanting to hurt the Human being - just being what it is: the semiotic background that subserves our ego consciousness and its various
functional perks.

Being rich is such a taken-for-granted support in helping people "feel the way they want", no? So its an important condition. It

Anywho, the point of this thread, this time, is neurodevelopmental - with an emphasis on so-called "gene-environment" G x E interactions.

Firstly, let's explore what it means at a genetic and functional level what "sociopathy" means. Sociopathy is a psychological condition which
appears to be an emergent property of a particular body-environment coupling. The coupling - or the interactive history - is genetically implicit in
any person's constitution, inasmuch as we all inherit within ourselves the genetic i.e. interactive histories of our ancestors, all the way back to
the first homo sapiens.

There are people today who believe, like the novelists HG Wells, Edward Bulwer Lytton, etc, that a "new race" will arise among Human beings, and
this new race, it seems, possess a "genetic uniqueness", which might indeed be detectable today via developmental neuroscience. So what does such
neuroscience say?

Dopaminergic and Serotonergic Systems: Activating and Inhibiting: The Way of Attunement

So there is something very fundamentally important about our nervous systems - and all nervous systems - and this is that they are regulated by two
different chemical systems which work according to activating (dopamine) and inhibitory (serotonin, MOAO) principles.

This is of course common sense: organisms either approach what they want, or withdraw from what is destructive to them, and so hence the reason why
dopamine and serotonin systems are alike in all animals with a complex brain. The former is always excitatory, and the latter always inhibitory.

There are three well-known genetic polymorphisms related to environmental experiences: monoamine oxidase A (MAOA), serotonin transporter (5-HTTLPR),
and dopamine receptor D4 (DRD4); MAOA is located on the X chromosome, which encodes the MAOA enzyme which metabolizes neurotransmitters such as
norepinephrine, serotonin and dopamine, rendering them inactive. Low activity of the MAOA allele is associated with antisocial behavior, as well with
children who have a history of abuse and neglect. Children with high level MAOA activity (a different allele) have substantially less childhood
maltreatment. The 5-HTTLPR is found in region SLC6A4, which codes for the serotonin transporter. The two main variants are differentiated by a short
allele (s/s, s/l) and a large allele (l/l). The short allele is associated with reduced expression of the serotonin transporter molecule, which is
involved in the reuptake of serotonin from the synaptic cleft, and thus related to depression. People with the short-allele variant have been
consistently associated with anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, all of which are linked to an actual history of emotional abuse, maternal
attachment issues, and adverse childhood environments. The neuroscientist Jay Belsky describes this allele as a “for-better-and-for-worse”
dynamic. Finally, the DRD4 gene differs by the number of 48-base pair tandem repeats in exon III, ranging from 2 to 11. The 7-repeat variant is
associated with ADHD and high-novelty seeking behavior. Similar to the serotonin transporting gene, individuals with this allele are both sensitive to
abuse as well as a high-nurturing environment. In a study that sought to correlate gene to environmental history, as it relates to donations to a
charity (UNICEF), Belsky reports that children with the 7 repeat allele with a history of sensitive parenting donated the most coins to UNICEF,
whereas those with the same allele but a history of parental abuse donated the least coins.

Belsky writes:

“The observation that the same putative plasticity genes are associated with a more reactive amygdala, negative emotionality in infancy, and also
physiological stress reactivity suggest that the very children who are characterized by these traits could often be one and the same. This lends
empirical support to the hypothesis that heightened susceptibility to environmental influences – demarcated by genetic, physiological, and
behavioral factors – may be characterized and driven by a more sensitive central nervous system.” – Michael Pluess, Suzanne Stevens, & Jay
Belsky, Differential Susceptibility, in The Infant Mind: Origins of the Social Brain; pg. 90, Guliford, 2013

Belsky ultimately concludes that the key determinant, or the most dynamical input with regards to possible change, is the degree and sensitivity of
maternal attunement. Apparently a kind and responsive mother helps program the brain-stem and amygdala to experience the world in a less threatening
way. Belsky marvels at how the most vulnerable children also end up becoming the most resilient, wondering, without answering, how maternal
sensitivity can afford such psychological resilience - defined as the ability not to externalize i.e. project their problems, but process them in
their heads.

Belsky's description of the developmental process from the fetus onwards describes the genetic, epigenetic and behavioral elements:

“developmental plasticity in early infancy (A) can be considered a function of genes, the prenatal environment, and the interaction between both.
Developmental plasticity in childhood (B), then, is a function of genes, the postnatal environment, and the interaction between prenatally programmed
plasticity (A) and the postnatal environment. This postnatally programmed plasticity (B) interacts further with consequent environmental factors
throughout childhood/adolescence and predicts, together with main effects of genes and environmental factors, the developmental plasticity in
adulthood. According to this developmental model, plasticity can be understood as a primarily genetic potential that unfolds o different degrees
dependent on successive environmental factors.” – Michael Pluess, Suzanne Stevens, & Jay Belsky, Differential Susceptibility, in The Infant Mind:
Origins of the Social Brain; pg. 88-89, Guliford, 2013

Belsky concludes that perhaps the bigger problem population is not those people with the serotonin-coding allele with the 7 repeat, low MAOA
production, or the DRD4 dopamine gene, but those people with the 10 repeat, low MAOA, and low DRD4, who, being cast as "low-reactive", seem
impervious to environmental input, although, of course, this is the illusion cast by the present moment, and then reified.

In any case, Belsky's concern about the "imperviousness" to the environment, can be combined with the interactionist theory of the philosopher Shaun
Gallagher, who sees primary inter-subjectivity, secondary inter-subjectivity (shared attention), and narrative consciousness, as a transformation
process whereby the latter "builds from" the former.

The reason this is important is obvious: if the mind ignores aspects of the environment, then that means the mind is not receiving feedback from the
environment which may be necessary for the survival of the organism.

Indeed, not noticing things goes to the heart of the scientific endeavor. Not noticing was a problem of Darwins - who could only see an importance for
the "eliminative" dimension of evolution - natural selection - and not any generative dynamic. Not noticing was Descartes dilemma - his
dissociativeness and his taking for granted of the hermeneutical background.

Today's AI researchers similarly take for granted the obvious logic of Stuart Kauffman, who argues that there is a basic correlation between
dissipative processes - what characterizes living things - and the qualities of consciousness. Yet, somehow, these delusional AI maniacs persist in
their fantasies about somehow transferring their minds to computers.

What seems to be happening is here is clear: the mind, in objectifying others, simultaneously objectifies its self, and so, never recognizes how it
undermines itself as to the issue of accurate representation when emotional issues dissociated from perception direct attention away from things which
will destabilize it.

Climate change is just that: the majority of capitalists can't notice how important it is, and how the system, as Stephen Hawking recently warned,
really can move into a chaotic state of positive i.e. reinforcing feedback, where the biosphere of the Earth can be seriously damaged, or even killed.

Is not caring about this not itself a sign of "not noticing", and so, proving that you are incapable of "inheriting" anything? Survival of the fittest
really does entail caring about things that are not immediately you i.e. Other people, the Earth, because such things end up feeding back positively
upon you, and hence, why it is good to care about other people and the natural environment.

Better to think of these transmissions as valves or channels through those pathways... in coping they are forced to route in ways around whatever
damage these copings can be either positive routes or negative routes.

Now imagine placing a mouse in the center of a maze with no way to the cheese, in coping it will attempt to climb over the wall the mouse being the
signaling pathways.

So re-routing the brain for balance; acts the same way as those working towards inhibiting the path... a desired outcome towards balance and peace.

When that outward control bottles up the inner control known typically as "self" the route finds a different pathway in the quest for that balance or
equanimity.

In working towards that coping? Impermance is usually neglected in the lets slap a chemical or pshycological feel good on it. Be that drugs, therapy,
religon or whatever.

The outcome of such is thought to be dire; many think that nuerological "deffects" rom that channeling or re-balance cannot regroup back into a calm
state of equipoise. Of course that what people typically mean when finding triggers; if oneself is not the trigger then it is the external that is the
trigger, hoping to force a coping or stress on the individual so they can then avoid responsibility.

Sometimes the system fails but as said given enough time... nature takes it's course and the toxic environment self destruct in that state called
death whether taken into their own hands or just as a natural course at the end of life for whatever health reason.

These disorders are typically called effective, because of the coping that aises due to those triggers effectng and affecting them.

Poor coping skills to such negative/toxic environments are common in children they typically mirror that behavior or dive deep within their own world
as an escape as a distraction... it would appear that the latter is better coping; however it causes a deficeit in interaction with others and
isolationism.

Making oneself one's own best friend in such cases in healthy ways is suggested... when the social aspect keeps wearing the mask of sociopathology of
facade instead of truth in a healthy manner so that all associated can heal.

Secrets, silence and lies rot the very nature of one's being and sense of peace... so truth eventually from bottling all of that up explodes because
it cannot contain it internally any longer... this is known by various names and is typically an introduction into the public mental health system.
The ssue is that the sociopath has learned to hide put on that face with such strong denial of their problem or guilt that they fein ignorance or
outright denial or responsibility or shift blame to something or someone else.

As that is also a coping learned but one to hide guilt to avoid shame and blame for their role, so the sociopath is really like someone with multiple
personalities in here is the face for public, here is the face for church, here is the face from friends, here is the face for work, here is the face
for family, and here is the face you'll never see unless you are a direct victim of that abuse.

One face in all of those circumstances? I have found... scares the living $h!t out of people. I know a fellow that really enjoyed the scare or fear
that people would have because he as an entertainer wears clown makeup and looks kinda like Gacy with different makeup. He made a joke about how
scared or uneasy people were of him and how I was the only person that scared the $h!t out of him because I do not wear a mask, and am the same no
matter the location or audience...

It in my opinion is brutal honesty without having to say a word... only because those wearing masks feel wholly uneasy. Should I find that in the same
bent as he does while wearing one? No I find the wearing of them disturbing, and society seems to force them onto people for acceptance in expectation
instead of just naturally being.

Such then becomes the nature where pyschology and sociology meet. Social norms becoming laws etc. or those being broken based on peer groups etc. when
none of these become effective on being and one does not commit any crimes? Then where are the excuses for doing what other do behind their masks that
used to be comfortable? It is one thing to have a job as an actor... it is another to carry that into the real world and present that as a self.

That presentation with the mask is the plastic, the fake, the unreal... it is not the true ground of being, but one of coping in the face of all they
cannot face. Or if they have and no justice has come of it? Time heals all wounds just as dirt and sand filters all toxins from water if deep
enough.

All mental wounds can be healed given enough time, and changing coping is in my opinion one of the best ways towards that end where the chemical
path/straighjacket etc. is no longer needed.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.